644 



SOCIALISM 



materialistic, and revolutionary. He condemned 

 All forms of government, whether baaed on tin- 

 will of a single ruler or on universal suffrage, an 

 necessarily leading to tyranny. The one threat 

 aim of every reasonable creature is scientifically to 

 know the laws of nature and to put UatMU in 

 harmony with them. Thus the goal of social pro- 

 gress is an enlightened freedom, in which external 

 control is superfluous and despotic, ami every man is 

 a law to himself. For attaining this end Bakunin 

 advocated a policy of unsparing destruction of the 

 existing society. The future organisation would 

 proceed from the free initiative of the people, 

 who will group themselves in associations, all the 

 arrangements of which, including the institution 

 of marriage, will depend on the free consent of 

 the members. And these free associations will 

 group themselves into a federation, formed and 

 maintained on the same principle of freedom. In 

 economics the school of Bakuniii advocate a collec- 

 tivism which is essentially the same as that of 

 Marx. The International (q.v.), however, was 

 broken up through the differences between the 

 Marx party and that of Bakunin. The theories of 

 anarchism have had a very considerable influence 

 in France, Spain, Italy, and Russia. The risings 

 in southern Spain in 1873 were stimulated by 

 anarchist teaching. In 1883 the great trial of 

 anarchists at Lyons made an interesting revelation 

 of the theories and methods recognised by that 

 school of socialists. It is not clear how far the 

 revolutionary party in Russia has been affected 

 liv anarchist doctrines. Krppotkine, the eminent 

 Russian exile, and the distinguished French geo- 

 grapher Reclus may lie regarded as the chief living 

 exponents of anarchism. The Russian revolution- 

 ary party has no doubt been greatly influenced by 

 men like Bakunin and Kropotkine, but it has also 

 owed much to Lassalle, Marx, J. S. Mil), Herbert 

 Spencer, and other thinkers wlio have no sympathy 

 with anarchism as a special form of political and 

 economic thought. 



During the last generation socialism has un- 

 doubtedly made great progress throughout the 

 civilised world. Yet, except in Germany, and 

 perhaps Denmark, the number of the avowed and 

 active adherents of the movement is still com- 

 paratively small. The growth of the socialist 

 voting (lower in (icriuany has been already noted. 

 In Denmark the numbers of the socialist party are 

 numerous enough to organise great demonstrations 

 and to support a daily newspaper with a large 

 circulation. French socialism is influential only in 

 Paris and the industrial centres, and has returned 

 a few representatives to the Chambers. In Italy 

 and Spain there is a considerable socialist feeling. 

 but il is mostly latent, and therefore cannot easily 

 lie measured. The movement is spreading in 

 Austria ami Belgium ; whilst as regards Holland, 

 Sweden, and Norway we ean only say that the 

 party, though increasing, (ills as yet but a small 

 portion of the national life. The revolutionary 

 jiarly in Kn-~ia li:i- been exceptionally active, hut 

 its numlicrs have been small. In Knghind, after 

 having died out almost for a generation, the move 

 :nent took a fresh start alnint 1H83. For some 

 years after that date it attracted great attention, 

 and gained a numlier of able and active adherent- : 

 but it has again entered upon u quiescent, stage. 

 Socialism has also spread to America and I lie 

 Australian colonies; yet, while the laliour move- 

 ment has most |Miweifnlly affected l>oth continents, 

 it cannot be said that organised and avowed 

 socialism has made very marked progress. 



The general result is that outside of Germany 

 and Denmark the nnmtar of avowed and active 

 socialists is comparatively small. On the other 

 hand, few will doubt that the direct and indirect 



influence of socialism on social economic and ]xiliti- 

 cal thought has lieen very great. 



Limiting to the main drift of speculation on tliis 

 subject both in the past and present, we mar 

 briefly define the fundamental principles of .social- 

 ism as follows. Socialism holds that the present 

 system of industry, which is carried on by private 

 competing capitalists, served by competitive wage- 

 laliour, must be superseded by a system of free 

 associated workers utilising a collective capital 

 with a view to an equitable system of distribution. 

 On this theory private capital will be al>oH.shed, 

 and rent and interest will cease. The method of 

 distributing the fruits of laliour advocated by 

 many socialists cannot IK- distinguished from com- 

 munism. But this is not an implicate of the 

 historic socialism. Several methods of remunera- 

 tion professing to lie equitable have lieen put 

 forward, and each member of an association of 

 workers would be free to use his special income as 

 he pleased. In fact, all such moderate wealth at 

 would be devoted, not to production, but to con- 

 sumption, might be regarded as at the free dis- 

 position of the owner. And a method of distribu- 

 tion which fixed the remuneration of each in 

 proportion to his services might admit of a very 

 considerable variety in the amount of incomes. 

 But the individual ownership of capital and the 

 free disposal of it and the individual appropriation 

 and possession of the advantages derivable from 

 private capital in the form of rent and interest 

 would terminate. A conspicuous exception to 

 such an arrangement is fonnd in Fourier, who 

 made the continuance of private capital a sub- 

 stantial feature of his system. It remains, how- 

 ever, that the historic socialism in general as well 

 as the active and organised contemporary forms of 

 socialism demand the alwwirption of private in an 

 absolutely collective capital. In tlie definition 

 alnive given socialists of the Marx and of the 

 anarchist schools would agree. 



Probability is the guide of life, and it is ex- 

 tremely improbable that any system of indust ry 

 involving the addition of private capital should 

 ever become prevalent. And if it were practicable 

 it would greatly limit the legitimate anil reason- 

 able interests of human freedom. The materialism 

 of the Marx and anarchist schools is also a grave 

 objection to their theories as historically presented 

 to us. Both schools too have laid most excessive 

 stress on the virtues and possibilities of the 

 revolutionary method of action. The evils of the 

 existing society are not due merely to had social- 

 economic and political mechanism : they are rooted 

 in human nature itself. No revolution can produce 

 a magical change in human nature. A revolution 

 can indeed remove abuses ; but the\ alw.-i\ s return 

 in a modified form, or the old alms,., are replaced by 

 new ones. Human society and human nature can 

 be radically improved only by a long and gradual 

 organic change, economic, political, ami ethical. 

 It is particularly Utopian of the Marx school to 

 believe that the struggle of c n be ter- 



minated by a great ic\o]ulionar\ act. In short, 

 the socialism of Marx is altogether too absolute, 

 alistract, and remote from the fads of history and 

 existing human nature. His theory of surplus 

 value is the most striking example of this abstract- 

 MC-S . instead of lieing the key to the development 

 of capitalism, it is really the vitiating element in 

 a great and claliorate historical production. 



Must we then regard socialism as a passing and 

 errant phase in human development, which, after 

 exeiiing wide spread attention, like the forms of 

 communism that have emerged at certain periods, 

 is, like them, doomed to disappear? The answer 

 to this question can really IM> given only in the 

 hiMorv of the future. For socialism is not an 



